2003 tax cut: $350 ($354 the cut has a tiny deficit-reducing impact in its final years)

Medicare Part D: $395 ($271). Note that I am not including the fact that the cost of this bill was almost immediately reestimated after it passed to be significantly higher, since that was not knowable to members of Congress when they voted.

While I won't dispute that Republicans, certainly of the last several years, have not been nearly as fiscally conservative as some of us would like. You do realize that there are two sides of the budget right? Revenue (taxes) and spending. While they definitely should cut taxes, I agree they should have also cut spending as well and cut it even deeper in order to achieve (minimally balance) or (better) surplus to be used for debt reduction and (in the future) more tax cuts.

The three biggest parts of spending are:

- "Defense" (I put in quotes because most of this is not really for defensive spending and this budget would be much smaller if it were)
- welfare
- interest on the debt

All three of which appear to be spinning out of control. Everything else is chump change. But, hey, this is how empires end.

Here's a nifty website. Try your hand at balancing the budget. Using the simple budget simulator I was able to reduce the deficit to about $140B by making some cuts across the board (including defense)...in short enough cuts to piss everyone off. I also reduced some taxes. I don't think it would be hard to get in balance from there with a bit more in spending cuts alone.

China's rise has far more to do with low interest rates than mostly people realize. The businesses get money at a much cheaper rate: this is the deciding factor in there growth, far more than cheap labour.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

- Other Social Security Programs (cut 100%)
- Social Security Program and Benefits (cut 10%)

Taxes:

100% cut for the following:

- Corporate Income Tax for small, medium and large corporations
- Estate and gift taxes

This all leaves about a $50B surplus.

It should be noted that this simulator uses static scoring so it's not possible to know what the benefits of spending and tax cuts would be to the economy, possibly actually increasing tax revenue.

You cut all of that and ended up with just a $50 billion surplus?

I agree with you on cutting military spending 50%, I'd even go for more up to an 80% cut, and I'd cut the prison systems budget by 95%.

I'd add money to the poor, at least double that and take the top 5% earners to a 70% - 75% tax bracket. The top 15%-5% bracket to 60% - 70%, keep it the same for the top 35% - 15% and have tax cuts for the rest, including not paying any sales tax if your income is in the 0% - 33% bracket.

I'd cut the healthcare spending in half with single payer and everyone would be insured.

Schools would get dramatically increased funding for better equipment and facilities starting with the most run down schools. They'd be lavishly equipped and would be allowed to take up to 10% of their pupils from parents paying privately for such a good experience. Teachers would also get substantial pay rises.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Remember, I cut taxes also. With all that spending cut, some tax relief was also in order. Leaving some folks with more of their own money is a good idea once in a while. Ultimately, I'd love to try and cut enough spending to eliminate the income tax altogether.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I agree with you on cutting military spending 50%, I'd even go for more up to an 80% cut, and I'd cut the prison systems budget by 95%.

80% might be too much...but hard to know once we stop starting wars and meddling in the affairs of other countries and regions. The prison budget could be cut...much of that could move down to the state level, and if you ended the "war on drugs" and legalized most drugs for adults, your imprisonment rates would likely go down anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

and take the top 5% earners to a 70% - 75% tax bracket. The top 15%-5% bracket to 60% - 70%,.

This would likely be quite disastrous for the economy and would actually not garner much (if any) more revenue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I'd cut the healthcare spending in half with single payer and everyone would be insured.

I'd cut all healthcare spending and de-regulate the industry (including eliminating state-based prohibitions on inter-state insurance sales), then overall healthcare spending would likely go down and everyone would be able to afford insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Schools would get dramatically increased funding for better equipment and facilities starting with the most run down schools. They'd be lavishly equipped and would be allowed to take up to 10% of their pupils from parents paying privately for such a good experience. Teachers would also get substantial pay rises.

Yeah...none of that has worked so far. I'd eliminate all federal education funding. Move it down to the state and hope they moved it further down to the local level. Ideally it would be completely privatized so that cost would go down, options and quality would go up.

So roughly how long do you think, with your cost cutting plan (that Tea Partier's would be envious of) to get the debt gone completely? If your at $50 billion you've still got nearly $13 trillion to go, actually more because...well...you know why

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

So roughly how long do you think, with your cost cutting plan (that Tea Partier's would be envious of) to get the debt gone completely? If your at $50 billion you've still got nearly $13 trillion to go, actually more because...well...you know why

A long time. But here's the thing...this whole budget game doesn't take into account economic growth and additional revenue that would come from that which would likely increase the surplus. So I think you'd be able to reduce that debt faster that way.

The first goal is just to get the budget in balance (or really close). Stop increasing the debt. This is tough to do without making a lot of tough choices. Once this has been done and the dust has settled a bit, round 2 is get more aggressive and start running surpluses (more spending cuts) and using those for debt reduction. In that sense you should never run a "surplus" until the debt is 0.

A long time. But here's the thing...this whole budget game doesn't take into account economic growth and additional revenue that would come from that which would likely increase the surplus. So I think you'd be able to reduce that debt faster that way.

The first goal is just to get the budget in balance (or really close). Stop increasing the debt. This is tough to do without making a lot of tough choices. Once this has been done and the dust has settled a bit, round 2 is get more aggressive and start running surpluses (more spending cuts) and using those for debt reduction. In that sense you should never run a "surplus" until the debt is 0.

I agree we shouldn't be increasing the debt. One problem with your approach though (and mine for that matter) is that when you take so much money out you lose jobs, you may gain some in other areas and there are a multitude of remedies, but those jobs will go fast with the cuts we're both espousing, millions of them.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I agree we shouldn't be increasing the debt. One problem with your approach though (and mine for that matter) is that when you take so much money out you lose jobs, you may gain some in other areas and there are a multitude of remedies, but those jobs will go fast with the cuts we're both espousing, millions of them.

Well in the government many jobs would be lost, yet. There would be some disruption when you downsize the behemoth that the US government has become. But this will be more ethan compensated for. It will have to be done eventually.

2003 tax cut: $350 ($354 the cut has a tiny deficit-reducing impact in its final years)

Medicare Part D: $395 ($271). Note that I am not including the fact that the cost of this bill was almost immediately reestimated after it passed to be significantly higher, since that was not knowable to members of Congress when they voted.

From the list above how do they cut $7.5 billion for federal travel? Thats cutting it in half. Seems a huge figure for printing and binding by congress. They must currently spend $94 million on that a year.

Lol, they want to stop giving the IPCC $12.5 million, what a joke.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

2003 tax cut: $350 ($354 the cut has a tiny deficit-reducing impact in its final years)

Medicare Part D: $395 ($271). Note that I am not including the fact that the cost of this bill was almost immediately reestimated after it passed to be significantly higher, since that was not knowable to members of Congress when they voted.

How about simultaneously abolishing the Federal Reserve and personal income tax?

It will never happen. Honestly, I think the income tax affects the American public more directly. I understand what an unaccountable behemoth the Fed is. My question is...what would replace it? Would the treasury just supply money directly?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

"* (1996) A number of Republicans have sent e-mails complaining that the Congress was Democratic while Ronald Reagan was President. Unfortunately, only half the Congress was Democratic during President Reagan's first 6 years in office, when the entire National Debt more than DOUBLED. The upper house of Congress, the U.S. Senate, had a Republican majority during those six years, which comprised most of President Reagan's time in office. That's why Bob Dole was the Senate Majority Leader while Reagan was President. Those Republicans also don't seem to know that any Bill passing out of Congress had to be approved by BOTH Houses of Congress, even by the Republican Senate! Furthermore, to go into Law a Bill must be signed by the President -- none other than Ronald Reagan during those critical years! President Reagan almost TRIPLED the National Debt during his eight years in office!"

I

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

You can argue who did what in the past all day long and it won't accomplish anything.

The simple fact is, what NEEDS to be done NOW is NOT being done. Spending must be reigned in and reduced. It is the only way to pay off our debt. Neither the republicans nor the democrats are willing to do that.
The politicians are there to garner personal power first, party power next, and to do what's right only if it doesn't compromise the the first two goals. They've proven that through their actions time and again.

From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...

"* (1996) A number of Republicans have sent e-mails complaining that the Congress was Democratic while Ronald Reagan was President. Unfortunately, only half the Congress was Democratic during President Reagan's first 6 years in office, when the entire National Debt more than DOUBLED. The upper house of Congress, the U.S. Senate, had a Republican majority during those six years, which comprised most of President Reagan's time in office. That's why Bob Dole was the Senate Majority Leader while Reagan was President. Those Republicans also don't seem to know that any Bill passing out of Congress had to be approved by BOTH Houses of Congress, even by the Republican Senate! Furthermore, to go into Law a Bill must be signed by the President -- none other than Ronald Reagan during those critical years! President Reagan almost TRIPLED the National Debt during his eight years in office!"

I

Not this shit again. OK, <long inhale, then exhale>....here we go..

Tax cuts and wars do not create deficits in and of themselves..especially the former. Secondly, comparing 1980s era era deficits to today's deficits is silly. We were in the middle of the cold war. Deficits were not created by the Reagan tax cuts, buy by overspending, which was controlled by a primarily Democratic Congress (no matter how you spin it). Reagan started out as a deficit hawk, and reluctantly accepted deficits because he felt the greater danger was the Soviet Union.

The silliest thing of all is playing the partisan game here, though. What matters now is getting the situation fixed. The GOP plan is a start. I would like to see more, including entitlement reform and some military spending cuts, but it's a start.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

The Fed need s to be abolished (as does the income tax). Sammi_jo is right about this. It won't happen (voluntarily) of course.

No what I mean is that much of the money in the federal reserve bank is owned by private entities. It's not the government's money. It's odd to me that lefties would want to dissolve it and loose control over other people's money.